SARAN KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, Saran Kshetriya Gramin Bank, which is now known as Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank. The management has challenged the award dated 29.12.2005 passed in Reference Case No. 2(C) of 2003. Pointed submission has been made on behalf of the petitioners to the legality of the award in question, which are entirely legal.

(2.) THE first contention urged at the Bar by the learned counsel appearling on behalf of the petitioners is that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the management of the Bank and the so -called workman because he was not a workman under Section 2(oo) but falls within the exception of Section 2(oo)(bb) as he was employed intermittently by the Branch on contractual basis at times on day to day payment of Rs. 2.31P to 8.52P per day. In view of the status of the private respondent, no industrial dispute could be raised in his favour. The second challenge to the award is that there is no categorical finding by the Tribunal that the workman in question had worked for more than 240 days in the preceding calendar year immediately before so - called retrenchment or termination under Section 25F. In absence of a finding in this regard or a finding not being based on any evidence or otherwise being erroneous the award cannot be sustained. The third submission on behalf of the management is that even for the sake of argument, if the award is held to be valid, at least the relief granted in favour of the workman is invalid, because the Tribunal ought not to have ordered reinstatement of the workman from 28.11.1985 in the service of the Bank and regularize his service as a subordinate staff cadre with all admissible benefits, admissible to the rank and post. The relief granted by the Tribunal would amount to conferring a status upon the workman much higher in rank and position, even though he did not possess such a relationship with the management.

(3.) THE other decision which has been cited at the Bar is the case of Essen Deinki V/s. Rajiv Kumar, (2002)8 SCC 400. In this decision the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in paragraphs -15 and 16 relying on an earlier decision rendered in the case of Range Forest Officer V/s. S.T. Hadimani, (2002)3 SCC 25 reiterated the position that the requirement of the status of 240 days cannot be disputed and it is for the employee concern to prove that he has in fact completed 240 days in the last preceding 12 months period.